Table 6.

Exposure to animals and fertilizers among farmers in Khonkaen (phase 2 data only)



Cases

Controls

Relative risk estimate*
Exposure
No.
%
No.
%
Crude
Multivariate(95% CI)
Farm animals       
   Cattle or water buffalo   30   45   79   33   1.7   1.2 (0.6-2.4)  
   Chickens   29   44   68   29   2.0   1.0 (0.5-2.0)  
   Ducks or geese  17   26   18   8   4.2  3.7 (1.6-8.1)  
   Pigs   5   8   5   2   3.8   2.5 (0.6-10)  
Fertilizer§       
   Chemical   46   70   161   68   1.1   —  
   Animal  18   27   30   13   2.6   2.1 (1.0-4.4)  
   Compost
 
0
 
0
 
1
 
0.4
 

 

 


Cases

Controls

Relative risk estimate*
Exposure
No.
%
No.
%
Crude
Multivariate(95% CI)
Farm animals       
   Cattle or water buffalo   30   45   79   33   1.7   1.2 (0.6-2.4)  
   Chickens   29   44   68   29   2.0   1.0 (0.5-2.0)  
   Ducks or geese  17   26   18   8   4.2  3.7 (1.6-8.1)  
   Pigs   5   8   5   2   3.8   2.5 (0.6-10)  
Fertilizer§       
   Chemical   46   70   161   68   1.1   —  
   Animal  18   27   30   13   2.6   2.1 (1.0-4.4)  
   Compost
 
0
 
0
 
1
 
0.4
 

 

 

Questions added in March, 1998; information available for 66 cases and 238 controls.

— indicates not calculated.

*

Relative to nonexposure to the factor under consideration

The following factors were included in the model: age, sex, residential location, year of interview (continuous term), pesticide use, exposure to farm animals, animal fertilizer use, consumption of nonbottled water. Statistically significant estimates are italicized

At least 10 ducks were kept by 11 cases and 10 controls (MVRR 3.9, 1.4-11)

§

No subjects reported using human waste as fertilizer

Cattle or water buffalo (15 cases, 24 controls; 1 case and 1 control did not report exposure to farm animals), chickens (5, 11); ducks (4, 3); pigs (3, 2)

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal